Preemptive Action: When, How, and to What Effect? Number 200

Bunn, M. Elaine

doi:10.21236/ada421852

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the broad definition, not only in terms of strike, pre-emptive effort emphasizes on the importance of information sharing and analysis through intelligence which further becomes the core component of national security architectures [9]. In Indonesia, after the enactment of the Law number 17 of 2011 on the State Intelligence, there has been a growing debate on the principle of the regulations.…”

Section: Advances In Social Science Education and Humanities Researcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content Analysis of Indonesian National Security Architecture

Surwandono¹,

Ramadhani²

2017

Proceedings of the International Conference on Ethics in Governance (ICONEG 2016)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper aims to explain the relationship between the traditional and non-traditional security threats that Indonesia is facing, and the policy options undertaken by Indonesia to address them. Given the growing concern about the existing security threats, it is important to evaluate the national security architectures. This article applies content analysis techniques to understand the policy construction chosen by Indonesian government through a series of regulations; the State Intelligence Law, the Social Conflict Management Law, the AntiTerrorism Law, and National Security Bill. The research finds that Indonesian national security architectures emphasizes on the military-based approach, rather than the civil-based approach.

show abstract

Section: Advances In Social Science Education and Humanities Researcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content Analysis of Indonesian National Security Architecture

Surwandono¹,

Ramadhani²

2017

Proceedings of the International Conference on Ethics in Governance (ICONEG 2016)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…48 The nuclear threat timeline only starts with the research and development stage, moving from production and deployment to mobilization and use. 49 Planning for attempts to thwart a nuclear attack in the immediate and imminent future has often been positioned at the last phase. Nuclear developments at the research and development point of the threat cycle therefore do not pose an imminent threat in the widely shared, temporal meaning of the word.…”

Section: Contemporary Security Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Altering the Playing Field: The U.S. Redefinition of the Use-of-force

Warren¹,

Bode²

2015

Contemporary Security Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article will interrogate the degree to which the Obama administration has continued, even at times inadvertently, the Bush administration's challenge on international law. Notwithstanding the Obama administration's bold pronouncements pertaining to reversing its predecessor's policies, little has actually changed when it comes to how the USA considers using military force. As a means to unpack this transition, this article will firstly consider the apparent continuum of use-of-force policies from the Bush to the Obama administration, specifically: the American conflation in the line between pre-emptive and preventive selfdefence options; the sustained post-September 11 legacies that continue to lower thresholds towards using military force; and how this ultimately contributes to the erosion of international law in this area. Secondly, this article presents a critical contextualization of Obama's drone programme and its legal arguments in relation to his administration's overall use-of-force policy, focusing on jus ad bellum standards. In light of the centrality of targeted killings under Obama, our article will pay particular attention to the contradiction this poses with regard to his reluctance to use military force in relation to ongoing conflicts in Libya and Syria, while also looking at recent adjustments pertaining to use-of-force pronouncements against the Islamic State (IS). The article lastly considers what this will mean for international use-of-force thresholds and the future of the general prohibition on the use-of-force in the context of new and emerging technologies and theaters should the USA continue to skew and adjust its use-of-force policies on when, how, against who and where to use such force.

show abstract

“…143 The military's weapons systems provide it with unmatched direct combat capabilities that it can project almost anywhere in the world. Moreover, with its emphasis on precision munitions, speed of operations, information dominance and aerial/space systems, the military can single out individual military, economic and political entities for destruction while simultaneously minimising the risk of US casualties and collateral damage.…”

Section: Conclusion: Defence Transformation Requires Government-wide mentioning

confidence: 99%

Building the Future Force: Challenges to Getting Military Transformation Right

Reynolds

2006

Contemporary Security Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preemptive Action: When, How, and to What Effect? Number 200

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

Content Analysis of Indonesian National Security Architecture

Content Analysis of Indonesian National Security Architecture

Altering the Playing Field: The U.S. Redefinition of the Use-of-force

Building the Future Force: Challenges to Getting Military Transformation Right

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About